/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Kor wrote:I just don't think a player who is forced into a dumb situation through no fault of their own and defends themselves from grief should then be viewed through a negative lens and added suspicion the next time someone griefs and defends themselves two hundred rounds later.

It's possible you use notes differently than I'm imagining but some admins treat notes pretty harshly (like this guy getting a double ban length because he was warned three years and one thousand connections ago for similar behavior)



Erring on the side of placing notes isn't really fair as long as some portion of the admin team treats them as something so damning.

This is both irrelevant (these are the notes of arnes111, not the OP) and a totally different situation. If you get banned for IC in OOC in 2013 then you sure as hell have had ample time to learn not to do it. There is no IC context to take into account, no escalation or retaliation or "forced into a dumb situation" or "grief." You learn not to do it, and then you don't do it. If you still do it, then your 15-minute ban doubles in what is generally accepted precedent for IC in OOC bans. Using IC in OOC as evidence of anything to do with arguably IC situations like this is completely on-its-face asinine and the only explanation I can think of for why it is even posted here is that I placed the ban.

tl;dr: I know you think I'm a shitty admin and will take any opportunity to single me out and say so, but please do not drag it into unrelated threads.

>spending literal years following the rules in a videogame showing good behavior is not a mitigating factor but rather a further mark against a player because it shows they know better

Deranged

And I posted it because it was a relevant example of how notes can snowball and haunt someone for years, and I remembered it because I was online at the time and discussed it with MSO, get over yourself

What kind of insane logic is it that a player who has followed the rules for a long time should have that used against them
are you joking

This is really better suited to Policy Discussion, but "notes counting against someone" is bad when the notes are inaccurate and/or based on subjective judgment calls, both of which arguably apply to the OP and are why the OP exists in the first place. The clown thing is a pretty clear example of giving people harsher punishment based on fuzzy one-line little-context summaries of in-game situations that ultimately are the admin's judgment call.

IC in OOC is not a judgment call. (I'm going to assume it was an accurate ban since I don't remember the details of every instance of ick ock that happens.) It is one of the most black-and-white, objective rules we've got. You either do it or you don't, and once you learn the lesson not to do it, it is a reasonable expectation that you never do it again. So yes, in that case, it is fair for your notes to count against you. The same goes for any of our black-and-white rules, like rape. If you get permabanned for raping someone in 2013, spend four years not raping anybody, then rape someone again in 2017, then no, your four years of not raping anybody don't make it any better. Again, this has been note appeal policy basically since the beginning:

Basically if your note wasn't the result of an accident or a mistake, it's not going to be removed. ... While you may have been pardoned for the ban these kinds of things stay in your notes so we know if it happens again in the future that it isn't the first time. It will be that much harder to apologize for and claim it was a mistake or lapse in judgement the next time it happens. That's intentional. Just because you admitted you were wrong and got off the ban doesn't mean we expunge things from your record.

FWIW I think you have a point but when the note itself points to the reason being the 3 year old note can you really blame people for interpreting it the way kor posted about it

Can you fucking retards stay on topic for one goddamn page?

yes if I insult them they will definitely start to agree with my point of view

1. Don't be a dick.
We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules. Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, these conflicts should escalate properly and retribution must be proportionate."

So the clown acted like an insufferable cunt for literally no reason except he wanted the expensive toy the one guy had. Compare this to a mech, would you also ban someone who blew up a mech he just made that the clown had climbed into and ID locked?

Precedent 2 of rule 1
Acceptable escalation is defined as not using an excessive amount of force to control a situation. Proportionate retribution is defined as a relatively equal amount of force applied to someone in revenge for an earlier attack. Multiple factors are considered here, including but not limited to methods of force available to the involved players, who instigated the conflict and why, the state/general situation of the station, how the players involved end up. Excessive escalation or retribution, depending on the situation, may result in admin intervention, to warnings, to bans.

So his only option is the grenade launcher as its been previously stated because this guy is about to disappear, the guy instigated the conflict to be a cunt, and the only questionable part of this is if it was excessive or not, which again, he had only the option to blow this guy up. If you can agree that it was reasonable to kill him, it shouldn't be his burden to clone him. The condition of people cloning other people they kill is only normally applicable when they shouldn't have killed them in the first place (in my experience). And saying "Well if a bunch of the work was already done it wouldn't be that much work" is literally retarded.

This ban is so silly it seems like you're only defending it because you don't want to be wrong.

oranges wrote:yes if I insult them they will definitely start to agree with my point of view

I don't care if they agree or not it's starting to get wildly off-topic.

Nilons wrote:
This ban is so silly it seems like you're only defending it because you don't want to be wrong.

it's a note appeal but yeah basically this

captain sawrge wrote:

oranges wrote:yes if I insult them they will definitely start to agree with my point of view

I don't care if they agree or not it's starting to get wildly off-topic.

I think he was saying that you could just go "this is super off topic please stop" and not have hostility in the post

that being said you're right, sorry about that

This whole note is a fucking joke, low key griefing someone and then ahelping when you get dunked on is bog standard banbaiting, noting the player who got ban baited Is retarded, overmoderation has turned this into a game about appealing to admins. This is as ic issue as conflicts get. What happened.

Ic issue

Is that really a shitpost?? Is it not a headmin ruling??

That wasn't a shitpost at all

my internet was sketchy as fuck, couldn't be bothered tapping out a full post on my phone thus 'ic issue'

Shit happens, and if a clown steals a flight suit from a player who only has a nade launcher available well ss13 is an open-ended game with consequences. If thunder's main point of contention was what happened with the body afterwards the note should have reflected that, although there's not a lot of responsibility placed upon Russel to do anything with the body. Dragging them to the medbay lobby is sufficient, just leaving their corpse if it's in a public hallway is passable.

If it was a 40mm, those do barely any collateral damage so no this post is not an endorsement for people to toss death chem nades or toxins bombs at thieves.